{OT} fair -->joke<--

There was a young college girl that was about to finish her senior year
of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and
was always at odds with her conservative Republican father.

One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his
opposition to a large benevolent government, and tax equalization, etc.
He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in school. She answered
that she had a 4.0 GPA but it was really tough. She had to study all
the time, never had time to go out and party and often went sleepless
because all of the studying. She didn't have time for a boyfriend and
didn't really have many college friends because of all her studying.

He then asked how her friend Mary, that was attending the same college,
was doing.

She replied that she was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never
studied, was very popular on campus and was at parties all the time.
She often wouldn't show up for classes because she was hung over. He
then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and ask
why she couldn't take 1.0 off her 4.0 and give it to her friend that
only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a 3.0 GPA.

She fired back and said, "That wouldn't be fair, I worked really hard
for mine and Mary has done nothing!"

After a moment of silence, she replied, "Dad, quit trying to change the
subject."

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0ejoa5w1xctab000@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> There was a young college girl that was about to finish her senior year
> of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and
> was always at odds with her conservative Republican father.
>
> One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his
> opposition to a large benevolent government, and tax equalization, etc.
> He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in school. She answered
> that she had a 4.0 GPA but it was really tough. She had to study all
> the time, never had time to go out and party and often went sleepless
> because all of the studying. She didn't have time for a boyfriend and
> didn't really have many college friends because of all her studying.
>
> He then asked how her friend Mary, that was attending the same college,
> was doing.
>
> She replied that she was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never
> studied, was very popular on campus and was at parties all the time.
> She often wouldn't show up for classes because she was hung over. He
> then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and ask
> why she couldn't take 1.0 off her 4.0 and give it to her friend that
> only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a 3.0 GPA.
>
> She fired back and said, "That wouldn't be fair, I worked really hard
> for mine and Mary has done nothing!"
>
> After a moment of silence, she replied, "Dad, quit trying to change the
> subject."[/color]

Your point is well made. We should let infants of poor ignorant single
mothers and fathers die of starvation and illness because it would not be
fair to take my hard earned money to provide formula and medicine to that
infant who's parents did not apply themselves as hard as I did. Heck, I must
be a conservative now, thanks.

Richard.

"Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:HTcRf.17685$jf2.8807@twister.nyroc.rr.com...[color=blue]
> Your point is well made. We should let infants of poor ignorant single
> mothers and fathers die of starvation and illness because it would not be
> fair to take my hard earned money to provide formula and medicine to that
> infant who's parents did not apply themselves as hard as I did. Heck, I
> must be a conservative now, thanks.
>
> Richard.
>[/color]

If I'm driving around with a bag of deposit bottles in my trunk and see
someone fishing thru garbage for the same I give them what I have. I guess
I'm a conservative too.
mark_

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:41:27 GMT, "Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>Your point is well made. We should let infants of poor ignorant single
>mothers and fathers die of starvation and illness because it would not be
>fair to take my hard earned money to provide formula and medicine to that
>infant who's parents did not apply themselves as hard as I did. Heck, I must
>be a conservative now, thanks.
>
>Richard.[/color]

Great Idea!

Then....guess what?

The lazy asses would get off their butts and work for their family

Thanks for bringing it up!

--

Scott in Florida

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:18:09 -0500, mark_digital© <976XXX@nospam.net>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>"Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:HTcRf.17685$jf2.8807@twister.nyroc.rr.com...[color=green]
>> Your point is well made. We should let infants of poor ignorant single
>> mothers and fathers die of starvation and illness because it would not be
>> fair to take my hard earned money to provide formula and medicine to that
>> infant who's parents did not apply themselves as hard as I did. Heck, I
>> must be a conservative now, thanks.
>>
>> Richard.
>>[/color]
>
>If I'm driving around with a bag of deposit bottles in my trunk and see
>someone fishing thru garbage for the same I give them what I have. I guess
>I'm a conservative too.
>mark_[/color]

LOL....

--

Scott in Florida

Scott the person that would give him cans or money IS the liberal. A true
conservative would HELP him find more cans while helping him learn something
that will enable him get a decent job and no longer NEED to collect cans.
;)


mike hunt


"Scott in Florida" <MoveOn@outa.here> wrote in message
news:faqa12dmn0g2pmeo4u6tjb7p9tlp80g0nj@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:18:09 -0500, mark_digital© <976XXX@nospam.net>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>>If I'm driving around with a bag of deposit bottles in my trunk and see
>>someone fishing thru garbage for the same I give them what I have. I guess
>>I'm a conservative too.
>>mark_[/color]
>
> LOL....
>
> --
>
> Scott in Florida[/color]

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> There was a young college girl that was about to finish her senior year
> of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and
> was always at odds with her conservative Republican father.[/color]
[color=blue]
> One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his
> opposition to a large benevolent government, and tax equalization, etc.
> He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in school. She answered
> that she had a 4.0 GPA but it was really tough. She had to study all
> the time, never had time to go out and party and often went sleepless
> because all of the studying. She didn't have time for a boyfriend and
> didn't really have many college friends because of all her studying.[/color]
[color=blue]
> He then asked how her friend Mary, that was attending the same college,
> was doing.[/color]
[color=blue]
> She replied that she was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never
> studied, was very popular on campus and was at parties all the time.
> She often wouldn't show up for classes because she was hung over. He
> then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and ask
> why she couldn't take 1.0 off her 4.0 and give it to her friend that
> only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a 3.0 GPA.[/color]
[color=blue]
> She fired back and said, "That wouldn't be fair, I worked really hard
> for mine and Mary has done nothing!"[/color]
[color=blue]
> After a moment of silence, she replied, "Dad, quit trying to change the
> subject."[/color]


Sounds good. Where can one find a FISCAL conservative Republican now a days?

Social conservatives seem to be a dime a dozen now a days.
Want to limit abortions? No problem.
Want to keep gays from marrying? No problem.
Want to keep gays from adopting? No problem.
Want to promote "intelligent design"? No problem.
Want to cut taxes? No problem.

Fiscal conservatives seem a bit harder to find...

Want the goverment to waste less money on programs that help very few
people so the dollar remains relatively strong and our grandchildren
don't have to pay off the loans? Find me a few electable politicans.
PLEASE!


I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I don't get along with
"big government conservatives". At least liberals usually do something
that benefits me with all that money they take from me...

[email]someone@somewhere.org[/email], 3/13/2006,4:18:53 PM, wrote:
[color=blue]
> I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.[/color]

How can this be? A social liberal wants government to fiscally fund
liberal ideals.

--
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who
are willing to work and give to those who would not." ~ Thomas Jefferson

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> [email]someone@somewhere.org[/email], 3/13/2006,4:18:53 PM, wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> How can this be? A social liberal wants government to fiscally fund
> liberal ideals.[/color]

No, that's a _socialist_.

A fiscally conservative socially liberal person is more like a practical
libertarian. I'm all for small government, but I think we need some basic
services like military, police, laws, courts, short term welfare, job
training, etc.


The current "conservatives" go against just about everything I believe
in the role government should play. They are all about big government
entitlements and big government spending, but they erode environmental
protections and poke their noses into personal issues.

If someone wants to get married to their same sex partner and adopt and
support an unwanted child why should the goverment care? From the
government's perspective, isn't that better than state sponsored
foster care?

Why isn't the abortion issue only a family & doctor issue? Why should the
government be involved at all?

If someone is terminally ill, why should the goverment criminalize their
doctor or spouse for helping them kill themselves?

If a husband wants to pull his wife who has been comatose for years off a
feeding tube and the courts allow him, why should Congress intervene?

If someone wants to do recreational drugs in their own home and they are
not out driving on the highway while high, why should the government care?

If a coal burning power plant has the techonology to greatly reduce
mercury pollution available at a financial cost far less than the social
costs of the damage the additional mercury is doing, why shouldn't the
government mandate reduced mercury levels?

<someone@somewhere.org> wrote in message
news:qFmRf.136522$0G.75341@dukeread10...[color=blue]
> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:[color=green]
>> [email]someone@somewhere.org[/email], 3/13/2006,4:18:53 PM, wrote:[/color]
>
>
> If someone wants to get married to their same sex partner and adopt and
> support an unwanted child why should the goverment care? From the
> government's perspective, isn't that better than state sponsored
> foster care?[/color]

For the same reason one can not marry their parents, siblings or their dog I
guess. It is against the very laws of nature
[color=blue]
> Why isn't the abortion issue only a family & doctor issue? Why should the
> government be involved at all?[/color]

I guess for the same reason the government gets involved if one kills the
mother or the doctor
[color=blue]
>If one is terminally ill, why should the goverment criminalize their
> doctor or spouse for helping them kill themselves?[/color]

Who knows for sure if the spouse and the doctor are lovers? How would
allowing that square with those 'terminally ill' people that have survive on
occasion?[color=blue]
>
> If a husband wants to pull his wife who has been comatose for years off a
> feeding tube and the courts allow him, why should Congress intervene?[/color]

The same reason, after a jury of one peers says a killer should be put
death, the government intervenes?
Besides who speaks for the comatose spouce?[color=blue]
>
> If someone wants to do recreational drugs in their own home and they are
> not out driving on the highway while high, why should the government care?[/color]

What if a firefighter get killed at the house fire they start while stoned?
[color=blue]
>
> If a coal burning power plant has the techonology to greatly reduce
> mercury pollution available at a financial cost far less than the social
> costs of the damage the additional mercury is doing, why shouldn't the
> government mandate reduced mercury levels?
>[/color]
For the same reason that the government gave utilities a pollution deference
in the first place. Higher utility rates will piss of the voters, like when
the government passed a law that a car could not be started if everybody did
not wear a seat belt, back in the seventies. Beside who decides the cost?
;)

[email]someone@somewhere.org[/email], 3/13/2006,5:48:54 PM, wrote:
[color=blue]
> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:[color=green]
> > [email]someone@somewhere.org[/email], 3/13/2006,4:18:53 PM, wrote:[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > How can this be? A social liberal wants government to fiscally fund
> > liberal ideals.[/color]
>
> No, that's a socialist.
>
> A fiscally conservative socially liberal person is more like a
> practical libertarian. I'm all for small government, but I think we
> need some basic services like military, police, laws, courts, short
> term welfare, job training, etc.[/color]

I don't think there are many people who disagree with the need for
services you have described. However a libertarian would argue against
the government having any role whatsoever other than national defense.
[color=blue]
> The current "conservatives" go against just about everything I believe
> in the role government should play. They are all about big government
> entitlements and big government spending,[/color]

You won't get any argument from me there.
[color=blue]
> but they erode environmental
> protections and poke their noses into personal issues.[/color]

Do you think conservatives want dirty water and dirty air? The cost of
doing business has become so outrageous that industry is moving out of
America. Steel is a good example.
[color=blue]
> If someone wants to get married to their same sex partner and adopt
> and support an unwanted child why should the goverment care? From the
> government's perspective, isn't that better than state sponsored
> foster care?[/color]

As has been said already, that is against the fundamental law of
nature. We are here to procreate and keep the species going.
Homosexuality is by definition unable to do that. Homosexuals adopting
children gives that child the wrong message about human beings.
[color=blue]
> Why isn't the abortion issue only a family & doctor issue? Why
> should the government be involved at all?[/color]

Why are the parents not allowed to make the decision for their underage
children? Why does the father not get a say so?
[color=blue]
> If someone is terminally ill, why should the goverment criminalize
> their doctor or spouse for helping them kill themselves?[/color]

How do you know they want to kill themselves? Besides, a doctor has
made a Hippocratic oath that doesn't say anything about killing people.
[color=blue]
> If a husband wants to pull his wife who has been comatose for years
> off a feeding tube and the courts allow him, why should Congress
> intervene?[/color]

How do you know the comatose wife wants that? How do you know the
husband isn't trying to profit from his wfe's death? What if her
parents are willing to take responsibility for her?
[color=blue]
> If someone wants to do recreational drugs in their own home and they
> are not out driving on the highway while high, why should the
> government care?[/color]

Because that makes recreational drugs socially acceptable and it
damages our children's ability to grow up and become socially
responsible people who support themselves and their families, not
depending on their next welfare check so they can go down to the corner
and get their next fix. Even prescription drugs have become a pariah
in America. Nearly half of the people I know are on anti-depressants
because they don't have the ability to deal with life on their own.
[color=blue]
> If a coal burning power plant has the techonology to greatly reduce
> mercury pollution available at a financial cost far less than the
> social costs of the damage the additional mercury is doing, why
> shouldn't the government mandate reduced mercury levels?[/color]

If their emissions are proven to cause environmental hazards then they
should be made to clean it up.

Based upon your arguments I am dubious whether you really have a
conservative leaning, much less even libertarian.

--
"I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts."
~ Will Rogers

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0ejoubw2oo613000@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> in America. Nearly half of the people I know are on anti-depressants
> because they don't have the ability to deal with life on their own.
>[/color]

and some of them have been on medicine so long they couldn't face a
beautiful paradise without going off the deep end. Very sad.
mark_

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:9fqcncuD3_xhUIjZUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=blue]
> Scott the person that would give him cans or money IS the liberal. A
> true
> conservative would HELP him find more cans while helping him learn
> something
> that will enable him get a decent job and no longer NEED to collect cans.
> ;)
>
>
> mike hunt[/color]

Look, I gave him about 2 bucks worth of bottles on one of the coldest windy
day you could imagine. I treat him as an adult by not embarrassing him by
lecturing. I am a conservative.
mark_

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> [email]someone@somewhere.org[/email], 3/13/2006,5:48:54 PM, wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:[color=darkred]
> > > [email]someone@somewhere.org[/email], 3/13/2006,4:18:53 PM, wrote:[/color]
> >[color=darkred]
> > > > I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.[/color]
> >[color=darkred]
> > > How can this be? A social liberal wants government to fiscally fund
> > > liberal ideals.[/color]
> >
> > No, that's a socialist.
> >
> > A fiscally conservative socially liberal person is more like a
> > practical libertarian. I'm all for small government, but I think we
> > need some basic services like military, police, laws, courts, short
> > term welfare, job training, etc.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> I don't think there are many people who disagree with the need for
> services you have described. However a libertarian would argue against
> the government having any role whatsoever other than national defense.[/color]

Hence the 'more like a _practical_ libertarian' comment.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > The current "conservatives" go against just about everything I believe
> > in the role government should play. They are all about big government
> > entitlements and big government spending,[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> You won't get any argument from me there.[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > but they erode environmental
> > protections and poke their noses into personal issues.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Do you think conservatives want dirty water and dirty air? The cost of
> doing business has become so outrageous that industry is moving out of
> America. Steel is a good example.[/color]

I think the conservatives currently in power don't care if people living
near the sources of pollution have to deal with dirty water and air as long
as they don't offend enough of them not to get reelected. The conservative
politicians can afford to live someplace less polluted.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > If someone wants to get married to their same sex partner and adopt
> > and support an unwanted child why should the goverment care? From the
> > government's perspective, isn't that better than state sponsored
> > foster care?[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> As has been said already, that is against the fundamental law of
> nature. We are here to procreate and keep the species going.
> Homosexuality is by definition unable to do that. Homosexuals adopting
> children gives that child the wrong message about human beings.[/color]

That they should be themselves and be tolerant of others and their
personal choices in life?
[color=blue][color=green]
> > If someone is terminally ill, why should the goverment criminalize
> > their doctor or spouse for helping them kill themselves?[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> How do you know they want to kill themselves? Besides, a doctor has
> made a Hippocratic oath that doesn't say anything about killing people.[/color]

Usually because they know they are going to die ahead of time and _ask_ to
die with dignity and little pain rather than suffer for months in a
hospital bed. I happen to think they own their body and can do with it
what they like.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > If a husband wants to pull his wife who has been comatose for years
> > off a feeding tube and the courts allow him, why should Congress
> > intervene?[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> How do you know the comatose wife wants that? How do you know the
> husband isn't trying to profit from his wfe's death? What if her
> parents are willing to take responsibility for her?[/color]

a) She was a vegetable. b) The comatose wife made her wishes known to
her husband. c) He didn't profit. He spent pretty much all his money on
medical care and lawyers fighting to safe his wife and then to carry out her
wishes. d) See "b". It went against her wishes.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > If someone wants to do recreational drugs in their own home and they
> > are not out driving on the highway while high, why should the
> > government care?[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Because that makes recreational drugs socially acceptable and it
> damages our children's ability to grow up and become socially
> responsible people who support themselves and their families, not
> depending on their next welfare check so they can go down to the corner
> and get their next fix. Even prescription drugs have become a pariah
> in America. Nearly half of the people I know are on anti-depressants
> because they don't have the ability to deal with life on their own.[/color]

How does smoking pot a couple times a year lead to living off a welfare
check? Do you have any idea how much we spend jailing/prosecuting small
time drug users and dealers in this country? Do you have any idea how
much gang activity might dissappear if there were a safe legal drug
distribution system?

I personally don't want to marry another guy. I personally don't want my
wife to have an abortion unless the pregnancy is a result of rape or to
protect her life. My personal drug habit is typically two beer and
two Advil a month. Maybe your moral beliefs are that even a little
beer and Advil are wrong. I wouldn't want to be forced to live by your
moral standards, therefore I don't impose mine on others.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > If a coal burning power plant has the techonology to greatly reduce
> > mercury pollution available at a financial cost far less than the
> > social costs of the damage the additional mercury is doing, why
> > shouldn't the government mandate reduced mercury levels?[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> If their emissions are proven to cause environmental hazards then they
> should be made to clean it up.[/color]

So are you arguing that high mercury levels haven't been proven to hinder
the development of childrens brains and cause short term memory loss in adults
or are you arguing that lots of mercury isn't released by coal power plants?
[color=blue]
> Based upon your arguments I am dubious whether you really have a
> conservative leaning, much less even libertarian.[/color]

I said I was a FISCAL conservative. I don't think the government should
be wasting money on programs that do little to forward society as a whole.
On the other hand I think people should be able to do whatever they want
so long as it doesn't significantly impact others.

I know this is a hard concept to understand. I'm not a traditional
Democrat for more entitlement programs or a traditional Republican for
fewer personal rights (except gun rights, those are sacred). I have my own
opinions!